Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

FixCam: What Will Happen in Wisconsin?

Today marks -- yet another -- primary day in a race that could well extend to the party's convention in late August.

Wisconsin is the crown jewel today and both campaigns spent President's Day playing the expectations game. Make sure to read the Post's Dan Balz on what's at stake in the Dairy State.

David Plouffe, campaign manager for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) held a conference call yesterday in order to make clear that Wisconsin is a state Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) wanted to, and could, win.

"Wisconsin by their own definition should be a state that is a very strong state for the Clinton campaign," said Plouffe. He added that since Wisconsin has a considerable blue collar population, large rural areas, and is a holding a primary rather than a caucus, Clinton could benefit.

Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton, had a quite different take in a conversation with The Fix.

"The Obama campaign predicted victory in Wisconsin weeks ago and declared the race all but over last week," Wolfson said. "We will do the best we can to do as well as we can and then its on to Ohio and Texas!"

As always, the truth in this spin war is probably somewhere in the middle. A quick glance at pollster.com -- an incomparable aggregator of good polling data -- the recent collection of surveys in Wisconsin shows Obama leading in seven of the nine polls conducted this month. (The two outliers were both conducted by the American Research Group.)

Judging from that polling, Obama should win. But by how much could prove telling when seeking to understand what to expect from the two candidates between tomorrow and March 4 -- the new Super Tuesday -- when Ohio and Texas will vote. (Scroll to the bottom of the page to vote in a Fix poll on what we should call March 4.)

For the first time in the race, the Clinton campaign has gone on television to draw contrasts with Obama over health care and Social Security. The Obama campaign, not surprisingly, has responded by launching commercials of their own that condemn Clinton's attack while launching a few sallies of its own.

The last time the Clinton tried to draw as stark a contrast with Obama was in the runup to the South Carolina vote late last month, a strategy that failed miserably and led to a huge victory for the Illinois Senator -- a win that in retrospect primed the pump for what has happened this month.

But, Wisconsin is not South Carolina. And, if Clinton wins, or loses by a narrow margin, the Wisconsin ads will likely serve as a blueprint of things to come. Remember that there are two full weeks between today's vote and March 4 -- the longest period of time without a vote of any sort since the runup to Iowa's caucuses. That sort of window allows a case to be built through a series of contrast television ads in a way that has been impossible up until now.

Plouffe, for one, is ready. "What you are seeing in Wisconsin is a precursor for Ohio and Texas," he said. "We fully expect them to run a negative campaign."

The challenge for Obama -- left unsaid by Plouffe -- is whether to fight back each time the Clinton campaign launches a negative piece of direct mail or puts up a contrast television ad. To date Obama's campaign has done just that. But, we have always believed that Obama -- the candidate of hope and change -- runs a far greater risk than Clinton of damaging his brand if he is perceived as engaging in the negative back and forth of politics as usual.

At the same time, Obama can't let a series of negative attacks go unanswered. It's an interesting predicament that could come to the fore over the next two weeks.

Of course, all of the above could well be moot if Obama wins Wisconsin today by a wide (20 points or more) margin. A blowout would validate the hope and change message and make Clinton think twice before launching another series of contrast ads against Obama in either Texas or Ohio.

To go of an a segway a little, I am conservative aussie and I am a little confused ... i understand the proportional delegate count based on the votes of the varying districts, but the thing i haven't worked out yet is what is the difference between a primary and a caucus ....

America spends so much more time and money on these things ... i know that it is the highest office in the land (american land, that is) but am i the only person that thinks the amounts of money are obscene ... oh well, democracy has always carried a price ... not necessarily financial, but a new day, a new issue ....

Any advice on the diff. between a caucus and a primary would be great.

Mrs. Obama "I can finaly say for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country."

My husband that never gets involved in politics, don't care much, makes his decision early on, and stays with it, back to the point, he was very upset. As a veteran, he looked at me, with tears in his eyes, and said "What about the soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, what about our soldiers all over this world, and here at home. How could she say that, what about the people like us that donated for Katarina, and the tsunami victims? Wasn't she proud of American then? What about after 9/11 and all the Americans that came forward, donated blood, donated money, time, food, blankets, and prayers. Wasn't she proud of us then? Is she only proud because her husband is running and winning? How can she sit there and say this is the first time she is proud to be an American. Is this why I was in Vietnam? Is this why I was in The Dominican Republic? I was there just so people like her can sit in my living room, on my t.v. and say she isn't proud of me, of the men I served with. How dare she put us down. I wish I could re vote, I would take my vote back from him."

For anyone to think this was funny, and some how didn't matter, and the fact that Mrs. Obama hasn't apologized, just goes to show how one sided the media is, had this been Bill, there would have been a media blitz for him to apologize. Even Al Sharpton would have gotten in a word. For ANYONE THAT THINKS THIS IS FUNNY, you do not know a veteran. This was the BIGGEST SLAM SHE COULD HAVE EVER GIVEN THEM. THEY TOOK THIS PERSONALLY. THE VETS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, NO MATTER THE PROBLEMS WE ARE HAVING NOW, WILL TAKE THIS AS A SLAP IN THE FACE. I HOPE YOU CAN LIVE WITH THIS, I DO HOPE WHEN YOU PUT YOUR HEAD ON YOUR PILLOW THIS EVENING, YOU WILL REMEMBER HOW HURTFUL YOU WERE TO THE VETS.

Also remember how hurtful you were to the rest of this country that comes to their neighbors aid. To the teachers that teach, to the police and fire fighters that put their lives on the line every day to protect us, to every American that no matter what are problems are, what job they do, still consider themselves the lucky ones, to be born is such a great country that you could say them words out loud and on t.v., because that is your opinion.

For the first time ever Mrs. Obama, you owe the Veterans, and the American public an apology. You might not have ever found a reason to be proud of your country, but the rest of this country has plenty.

Chris: You probably posted this after the last ARG numbers came in -- they are now showing a ten point lead for Obama (52%-42%). This would be a dramatic turnaround in a tracking poll since yesterday. As there is only a two point difference in the undecideds between the last poll and the one prior this would mean a noteworthy switch from Clinton to Obama at the last moment.

The language ARG uses to describe the shift is telling: "The shifts began as white, working class men between the ages of 45 and 64 (and fitting the demographic profile of an Edwards voter in the early states) moved from saying Obama was acceptable to them, but not a favorite candidate, to saying they preferred Obama over the other candidates running. At the same time, these men began to also say that they would never vote for Clinton in the primary once Obama became their preferred candidate." So, if these guys now claiming "preferred candidate" translates into votes today then ARG could have the poll scoop of the day and Obama could have some good news from this demographic going into Ohio.

To understand why we feel dismissed you have to understand Texas politics. UT Brownsville is the only state university in part funded by a local taxing authority. This means every other state university is funded by the state 100% except UT Brownsville - the agreement with the UT System was - if we as a 95% latino community wanted a university we had to agree to fund it partly through local property taxes.

This is how badly we are treated. So when a presidential candidate who cannot win without us snubs us we take it personal.

I would be curious to compare how many people voted today in Texas compared to those who voted today in Wisconsin. I understand Obama needed to be in Wisconsin today - the issue is - he has not even scheduled RGV for a future campaign stop

On the Swift Boat Veterans issue - a review of Eddie Lucio III campaign reports shows his number one contributor to be Bob Perry - who funded the Swift Boat Veterans - Bob Perry bought Eddie Lucio his political office - no one disputes this.

Obama's number one man on the ground in Cameron County is Eddie Lucio III.

We cannot get rid of these corrupt politicos because they use the politiquera system to steal elections. (See above) They get the money to pay the politiqueras from people like Bob Perry.

Of note, Hillary's number one and two people are Eddie Lucio Jr (father of the 3rd) and Gilberto Hinojosa. Hinojosa through his open support for Hillary is in violation of party rules. several weeks ago behind closed doors and no advanced notice to the people he was installed as the Democratic Party chair for Cameron county. As the Chair he is to remain silent on the issue until after the primary. It is this level of contempt for the law and rules which got him unelected and replaced with a Republican in the second poorest county in the US.

We are tired of being dismissed and having politicians from outside the valley coming in and telling us to continue to support these thieves

So when Obama failed to even schedule an event in RGV and has brought the scum of the earth to be his spokeperson - well as they say the rest is history - I now know the man and did not pull for Hillary or Obama when I voted today.

There's already been some talk of a vigorous primary challenge to Hillary for her '12 Senate reelection. So she has that to lose if her narcissism drives her further into party-wrecking territory.

Posted by: novamatt | February 19, 2008 12:28 PM

Can you tell me the source of the buzz. Just curious because I follow both national and local NYC politics and have not seen or heard any, not even on NY1's Inside City Hall, our local cable talk show.

Has the irony of Rush Limbaugh - the single most irrationally ardent and blindly unquestioning follower of George W. Bush for eight propoganda-drenched and disastrous years - calling a massive movement of the American people a "cult."

I agree with some earlier posters - it will be a close either way - I'm betting Hillary pulls a rabbit out of a hat and wins 51-49. (For all you Obama supporters - take heart - I've been consistently wrong in my predictions.)

Conventional wisdom says that negative campaigning works even though voters all say they hate it. It would be nice to prove conventional wisdom wrong and stop the negative campaigning before giving too much fodder to the GOP for November.

'Taking a break from our usual focus on the presidential race, a new Rasmussen poll of the Minnesota Senate race puts Al Franken up three points over freshman Republican Norm Coleman. Here are the numbers, compared to Rasmussen's last poll from November:

Obama wants Edwards' help - RGV is the poorest part of Texas and some of the poorest counties in the US - Hillary is talking to us - Obama cannot find us on the map

We are poor in part because of national politics - NAFTA has been very good to us -do you hear Obama or Clinton talking about how NAFTA brought us jobs?

Do you hear the truth about immigration from Obama - the fact of the matter is Bush is still playing catch and release at the same time he wants a wall - a wall for what? - so that INS can drop these people off at greyhound and hope they get on the bus.

Our issues are real- you ask the people here if they support the stopping of all federal funding for our schools until the school boards enforce the residency requirements - their answer is yes - we know that wealthy Mexican nationals are legally driving their children across the border every day to attend our schools for free and the school boards are looking a blind eye in exchange for campaign money -

we have real issues - no one cares - so when you fail to speak to us you are snubbing us - unless you live here you have no idea how bad and corrupt the politics is.

Obama and Clinton's operatives here are already working the mail ballots of the seniors. The workers are called politiqueras. The candidates through their operatives pay the politiqueras for every mail ballot they bring to the campaign in the name of the candidate.

This is why we cannot elect honest politcians - come speak to us - speak to the corruption - no Obama chose to get in bed along with Hillary with the very people we all have come to hate in the RGV -

If you snub us and get in bed with our enemies we will not vote for you

Bobby - you only have early voting physically at one place in the county, right?

Travis County's one physical location for early voting is 200 yards from my office, but I would be afraid, our County Clerk being an idiot, that I would get locked out of the caucus if I vote early. Yeah, its that bad here, and her job is up for grabs in this primary.

bobby, as a Wisconsin voter, I'm glad that Obama was here instead of in Texas this week. Since almost all of us are voting today, and since voting in Texas goes until March 4, can you help me understand why you feel snubbed?

anyone who knows Texas politics and RGV politics know - if we choose to vote it will be during ealy voting -

Obama's advisors failed him - he should have known this - Clinton's certainly knew this -

And why is Obama in bed with the same money which funded the Swift Boat Veterans?

Obama's Texas campaign is a disaster - he needs to show leadership before it is too late and fire his staff and hire new people - he will not because he is already insulated from the people - he is clueless as to his mistakes and his staff certainly are not going to fess up to their mistakes

Now I will say this Hillary has the former County Judge (County CEO in Texas) heading up her campaign down here. As a Democrat he is so hated by the people the people actually voted a Republican into office rather than relect a snake. The other key voice is a State Senator who oversaw the milking of 21.4 million dollars of taxpayer money for a non-existent bridge between Mexico and the port of Brownsville. If the mayors race is an indication the endorsement of these two men is a sure fire way to make the people vote against you.

I must say - Hillary is not very smart bringing on board two of the most hated politicians in South TExas.

The plagiarism thing does smack of desperation. Plagiarism is what you do in high school when you copy something and don't attribute a source. It isn't latching on to a piece of rhetoric from your pal as an ad lib during the speech. This is just the sort of thing you can expect from the lowest common denominator Clinton crowd. I suppose I would rather be charged with plagiarism than pardoning international fugitives and terrorists. Oh, I forgot. HRC only takes credit for her husband's accomplishments, she disclaims any responsibility for their part in selling the whitehouse.

I agree with novamatt. If she drags this out too long, after Obama secures an unbeatable advantage in the popular vote and pledged delegates, her and her husband's standing in the Democratic Party becomes more and more at risk.

The fact of the matter is, if the Democrats lose the 2008 Presidential Election, the party will blame the Clintons.

the way Texas assigns delegates is an important factor - because the RGV (Rio Grande Valley) has stayed home for so long no Democrats hold state wide office in Texas. For this to change Obama must be the nominee - It is the only way to get large numbers of blacks to register and vote. Also with a Latino at the top of the ballot for US Senate - things could change.

There is no doubt in my mind - the RGV will vote McCain before they vote Clinton -

Here is my problem - and unless you live here I can understand why you do not understand the problem. For 20 plus years Hillary and Bill have been coming here and taking money - they have delivered nothing. It has been this way for 150 years - we are dismissed until someone needs money - and then they ignore us after they get the money

This is why people do not vote - they know it is all a con job.

I voted earlier today. I waited on line to get into the voting station. Once I got signed in I waited to get a booth. I was told it has been that way all morning - a non-stop flow of people. In other words the turnout is already heavy. I did not vote in the presidential race - I feel dismissed by Obama - and since hell did not freeze over I could not vote for Hillary. Interesting though - the Texas ballot still has Biden Richardson Edwards and everyone else still on it - how is that going to impact the vote?

The people of the RGV know that without them the Dems cannot win statewide. Plain and simple. Obama chose it dismiss us. Yes, maybe we will not have the most delegates, but that hand full of delegates could mean the difference between winning and losing at the convention.

Latinos upstate are tied to the RGV - people are mad at Obama for dismissing us -this will translate to lost votes in the city.

He needs to fire his advisors and beg for forgiveness.

It is not helping Obama that his lead man in the RGV owes his entire political career to Bob Perry - the most hated Republican in Texas - he funded the swift boat veterans - you are who you sleep with.

"How big does Obama's win need to be tonight in Wisconsin to re-ignite the talk that Hillary should withdraw? 20 points? 25?
I'm not in the business of tamping down expectations, so I'm going to guess Obama wins 60-40, and that Clinton finally throws Penn and Wolfson under the bus."

LOL. I'm afraid the bus would sustain more damage than Penn and Wolfson would persuade the bus that it is really a tricycle and pedal away with it.

Obama would need at minimum a 10 point win to shake the earth under Hillary, but only 1 point to sustain his momentum. Nothing will stop Hillary from continuing though. She has nothing to lose.

I think it will be a 50/50 split or a Hillary win. I suspect the false plagiarism charges will sway enough of the swayable in the polling booth to tip the win to Hillary. Midwesterners are BIG on fairness and nice enough to believe what they see on TV even if it is a clever lie.

That's how Hillary wins. Last minute personal attacks that have no substance.

But there's Texas on the horizon. And also the debates. He needs both.

"As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain's campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there'd be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing.

It's an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, "This places McCain's grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists' influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts."

I've never been to an Obama rally, never heard him speak. Have never watched his speeches on TV, which I don't watch, anyway. None of the reasons for which critics claim his supporters are creepy or deluded or deceived applies to me. I don't know if he's just another politician, nor what he would do as president, nor (as is true with all the other candidates, if he would make a good president. Yet I am an Obama supporter.

What I like is the movement behind him, his supporters, the triumph of hope over apathy, over despair. The old ways are awful and don't work. I am beyond sick to death of culture wars, Dem/Rep divisions. I'm also sick of the real war in Iraq. Frankly, I'll take anything that has a chance of accomplishing this. While I have no idea whether Obama himself can do it, I have no doubt that his supporters can. It's them I like, far far far more than him.

wpost and bsimon, the "yankees" reference was tongue-in-cheek. I was pointing to the complexity of RGV politics. As I wrote here two weeks ago, RGV decisions will depend largely on whether the Senate race is the paramount concern, but then I had no idea how that would actually play out. Please keep in mind that McC will carry TX in the Fall and it is reasonable for the RGV and its Machine to only be worried about the Senate race.

As I and now others have pointed out, this Primary vote, from the presidential perspective, is about delegates, and the delegates are NOT in the RGV, because they did not turn out in 2004.

So BHO can win the majority delegates without EVER visiting the RGV, and HRC's early RGV efforts were mystifying, to some extent.

I do see that if HRC gets a big RGV turnout, she can win the popular vote AND lose the delegate count, at the same time.
According to the "Trail" the other day, her campaign has just figured that out, which is very unlikely. For her, there are three scenarios: win popular vote and delegate count, win popular vote and lose delegate count, or lose it all. I think her campaign is pre-spinning to call two of the three possiblities "wins".

So long as Obama stays on message and responds to her negative attacks with only facts and simple ideas such as "Americans are not interested in hearing this back-and-forth mudslinging," he'll be fine.

He can't let attacks go unanswered, but he doesn't have to respond to them with another attack. Only where a strong response is called for, factually speaking, should he go that direction. But so far she has not thrown anything of substance at him. She's cultivated attacks from her own mind and they're simply not sticking. He's too resilient for her unsubstantial critiques. So far, "we don't need a lecture from her" has been all that's been called for from the Obama camp, and it's what they're giving and what's working.

Listening to NPR a couple days ago, I heard brief interviews with working class registered republicans in small towns in Wisconsin, done in coffee and barber shops and hair salons, describing why they were voting for Obama.It was heartening and it made me feel like he will take it. This is an important point:

'Established more than 100 years ago, the Wisconsin primary is one of the few truly open primaries in the United States. As such, it will be closely watched by political reporters and pundits who wonder how Obama, Clinton, McCain, and the rest might perform in a contest that roughly resembles a general election.'

So CC, it would be most informative if you would post the total vote count for all 3 candidates in Wisconsin as a general bellwether.

I also heard bits of Rush Limbaugh yesterday [so you don't have to] and he spent the time I listened viciously attacking Obama, so now you know who they are worried about. The new meme shaping up is that Obama is some kind of cult leader -- like Charles Manson or something, [yes really -- I've seen this in a couple of places now, especially from ABC's Jake Tapper] and that his followers are all simple-minded. Limburger ran a clip of a bunch of people with valley-girl type accents saying things like "Obama is so totally like tomorrow, because tomorrow is the future, and yesterday is like, the past."

I think it will be close in WI; and wouldn't be surprised in HRC pulled it out. Just a feeling I have.

As far as momentum is concerned, there may be some effect next-door in OH from the WI outcome, but I think Obama's already moving up in TX and, if he plays his cards right, he will win there. Remember that under their funky delegate-allocation system, it is entirely conceivable for Hillary to win the popular vote and Barack to end up with more delegates. That would be an interesting spin problem for HRC: is it "the will of the voters," or is it "all about the delegates?"

The expectations game that the Clinton camp has been playing so well as of late sort of jumped the tracks in Wisconsin. Suddenly she's up in the polls, packing major events across the state, holding primary day rallies, etc. What happened to an early concession to Obama and moving on to 3/4? Now it'll be seen as a disappointment for HRC when she loses tonight.

"The Chicago Tribune has some interesting articles on the front page today about Obama. To all the Obama fanatics, he's not the messiah you "believe" him to be. He's unqualified and unelectable. "Just words" indeed."
.......

Um. Is this the same Chicago Tribune that endorsed Barack Obama?

Editorial: TRIBUNE ENDORSEMENTS
For the Democrats: Obama

January 27, 2008

In 1996, this page endorsed a Chicago attorney, law school instructor and community activist named Barack Obama for a seat in the Illinois Senate. We've paid him uncommon scrutiny ever since, wryly glad that he lived up to our modest prediction: We said Obama "has potential as a political leader."

Since then, so much has been written about U.S. Sen. Barack Obama that it's easy to forget how far an entire nation's scrutiny of him "as a political leader" has led us all. No longer does every article obsess on whether voters are ready for a black man in the White House.

Most Americans, we'd wager, by now have concluded that the color of his skin matters less than his evident comfort within it. Yes, he is vilified by less-secure Democrats for acknowledging Ronald Reagan was a transformative president who "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Our takeaway: Obama has the confidence to speak truth, poll-tested or not.

Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation. We offer him our endorsement for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary.

By one measure, this endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. But this is a more complicated contest, and a more complex candidate, than the norm. This nation's next president inherits a war -- against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere -- that has found many ways to divide Americans. Capitol Hill is gridlocked and uncivil. Our discourse is hostage to blame.

Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."

Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care -- when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.

Obama's key opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, unifies only her foes. Her penchant for gaming every issue -- recall her clumsy dodging when asked in a Philadelphia debate whether illegal immigrants should be licensed to drive -- feeds suspicion of maneuvering that would humble Machiavelli.

As this campaign has progressed, Hillary Clinton in moments of crisis hasn't been an ennobling sight. Her reliance on her husband, the less-than-presidential Bill, to trash-talk Obama reaffirms that the Clintons do whatever it takes to prevail. Depicting Obama's record on Iraq as a "fairy tale" is instructive: Think what you will of the war, but Sen. Clinton was an enabler when that was popular. In Kerryspeak, she was for the war before she was against the war.

The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.

Last week, Hillary Clinton attacked Obama for his association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.

Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.

One more time, Senator:

You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker.

Nor do we know of similar lapses during the 12 years we've been watching Obama.

To the contrary, the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama. We endorse him convinced that he could lead America in directions that the other Democrats could not.

Let's hope that the nomination is decided on the voice of the people, and not by spurious charges or by a handful of superdelgates.

We all agree that this election should be about unity, progress, and change--something the nation has lacked for this past 7 years. We should carry this message of unity into the general election.

Obama is a man of substance and conviction. Merely the fact that we would nominate and elect such a man after the past 8 years cannot fail to have positive effects on a world made cynical and disillusioned by the choices and acts of the Administration during that period.

The enthusiasm we see at rallies is more than ephemeral excitement. For many, Obama represents the desire for a transformation towards a politics grounded in truth, genuine compassion, and substantive efforts to benefit the many, rather than the few.

If you haven't been to a rally, or have, and want to take it with you, you can get the entire Obama rally setlist--all the way from U2's "City of Blinding Lights", to which Obama takes the stage, to the Obama victory anthem "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" at ITunes, here:

The Chicago Tribune has some interesting articles on the front page today about Obama. To all the Obama fanatics, he's not the messiah you "believe" him to be. He's unqualified and unelectable. "Just words" indeed.

Wake up voters! Don't be fooled by the corporate owned media who has shamelessly promoted Obama 24/7 while blatantly attacking Hillary 24/7. Ask yourselves why the corporate owned media and the rethuglicans (who own THEM) would be promoting Obama? Because, they know he's unelectable in the general election.

VOTE SMART ** VOTE HILLARY CLINTON!!

The corporate owned media understands that Hillary can win, they FEAR her, that's why they attack nonstop. It's all part of their plan for President McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

I'm selfish, I don't want it all settled early. I'm hoping that we get to see both Clinton and Obama in Montana the first week of June.

I think a good primary contest between these two would help Democratic chances in the fall in our state. We just never get to see top tier candidates. They will be front page, lead TV news story wherever they go. Montana is probably one of the cheapest media buys in the nation. How about a Missoula debate?

Why do you assume we are all "yankees" ...and what exactly does that mean anyway?

More us/them mentality. Not sure how that helps all Americans.

If you are trying to say that 50% of Texans are voting today and tomorrow and won't have the benefit of personally seeing/touching/hearing Barack and so, in an emotional pique, won't vote for him, well, i guess that's the way it will be. Unfortunately, there are 50 other states in the race and only one Barack.

If on the other hand you are interested in his policies, instead of his personality, there is plenty of information on his website.

Bobby seems to be taking a Texas-only view about the race, rather than viewing the Obama strategy nationally. For the Obama campaign, maintaining the winning streak with a victory in Wisconsin is important. Bobby's comments seem to indicate either unawareness or lack of interest in this fact of the race. If TX polls open today, it makes a little more sense that HRC has been campaigning down there already, while basically ignoring WI. However, if Bobby's comments are indicative of the general feeling of Latinos in the RG valley, its a little disappointing that people would leap to the conclusion that a candidate doesn't care about their vote.

"Obama campaign has so lacked substance. The plagerism charge simple proves it as far as I am concerned. "

This is a completely empty and deceptive charge.

Barack has been speking about the importance of words ever since Hillary claimed that Lyndon Johnson's "action' was the reason that civil rights were passed.

The word/action debate is nothing new. Nor is it new that Barack has been making the same point: words do matter.

In a 40 minute speech in Wisconsin among Democrats, Barack continued to expand on this point and in a 3 minute riff, repeated something his friend and fellow Democratic politician, Gov. Duval had said in one of his speeches 2 years ago..."just words."

This is hardly plagiarism. This is just desperation on Hillary's part.

Listen to what Barack said in November during another speech:

"But you know in the end, don't vote your fears. I'm stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it's the right one, don't vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe."

Barack, an author of 2 books, has no problem with originality. Nor with acknowledginh his sources.

To get the second without the first deprives Noriega of the Perfect Storm - and to get neither would be unthinkable. Thus, it was best for Noriega if BHO had already campaigned in the RGV. Because if eithr BHO heads the ticket w/o inspiring the RGV, or if HRC heads the ticket, Noriega is toast.

This actually makes perfectly good sense to me. Bobby is not talking about the likelihood of BHO prevailing on March 4, he is talking about down ticket effects in November.

Obama campaign has so lacked substance. The plagerism charge simple proves it as far as I am concerned. It took HRC's campaign to point it out to the public. Where has the media been all these months. The rookie Senator should be sent back to the Senate to learn his trade. Now he has got Michelle Obama the rookie firt Lady candidate. In her 46 year she is only now proud of the US because? Ha? WHY? Answer: People are being fooled into voting for her empty suit politician, her husband Mr. Obama. Why again? Because? He is African American? He is not female? ha? Wake up America HRC is clearly the most qualified to be the next President?

WPO , if we are already voting today and Obama is no where to be found - exactly how is that good for Obama. As many as half of the early voting will occur today and tomorrow - that will mean nearly 1/4 of all eventual votes will occur today or tomorrow and Obama is no where to be found -

We should call it March 4, 2008, because it's going to be just another day. After Obama cracks open that 64 ounce can of whoop ass tonight in WI and HI, the only TX flavor injected into this campaign will be Hillary and her Haters shouting "No mas!"

The vet issue is big in South TExas. We have a new first rate model for delivery of healthcare to veterans in South TExas. I just undersent a lot of emergency care under the new system - Did not have to travel to SA -

I will take the new model of healthcare being offered to Veterans in Harlingen Texas over any VA hospital anywhere - unlike in a VA hospital where you are treated by doctors in training - under the new system we have I have access to experienced highly qualified specialists.

Naturally, Obama and Clinton have called for abolishing the new model in favor of the old model wherein I would be treated by doctors in training.

Bobby W-C, I think Obama is taking it one day at a time. There are 2 weeks to focus on Texas and Ohio. I expect him to ramp up the pace & start campaigning heavily in those states, starting tomorrow. Sen Clinton has already been there, because she's already written off WI & HI - OH & TX are far more important for her, in order to close the pledged delgate gap, as she's a hundred-something behind at this point.

Then consider the size and locations of the State University system and the approximately 30 other four year colleges in Wisconsin, plus an active community college system serving many adults past their twenties. This state does lend itself to "ground-up", in part because of the college spread.

Does anyone know when student branches for the campaigns were opened at Ripon? Marquette? UW-Milwaukee? Beloit? The Menominee and Ojibwa community colleges? That information, if known, would tell us more than we know now, because we could predict the get-out-the-vote effort, in the snow, from the depth of those organizations.

In any event, proportional rules will limit the effect of the popular vote victory, for either Democratic candidate.

The last poll show Obama and Clinton in a tie in Texas - so my question is - why is Obama not working South Texas? On Wednesday Clinton will make two speeches in South TExas - Brownsville and Edinburg. This will make 3 speeches since Super Tuesday - Obama does not even have a scheduled visit.

In Texas a school child knows you cannot win Texas without South Texas. Even the Republicans flood South Texas during elections. So why has Obama abandoned South Texas?

As an Obama supporter I am angry and feel abandoned to fend for myself. Obama either has idiots advising him on Texas, or he has written off the Latino vote. If it is the latter he will loose and rightfully so.

I will vote for McCain before I vote for Clinton - At this point I am not sure Obama is any longer my candidate - his apparent decision to abandon the Latino vote will only serve to further divide Latinos and blacks in Texas -

I guess when push came to shove Obama showed his true colors and is not interested in healing the wounds between Latinos and Blacks.

While I think Obama will win by 8-10 points, 20 sounds unrealistic. I mean, this is supposed to be "Clinton country" (based on the demographics and primary vs. caucus voting). A win of 10 or more by Obama will not be insignificant and I reckon that Texas will follow with a narrow win for Obama while Clinton may squeak out Ohio. In any case, the "writing is clearly on the wall." Obama will be the democratic nominee and the next president by a fairly large margin.

I don't think it will stick. The Obama campaign needs a new ad that mashes up the Clinton quotes (I'm thinking 'just words' and 'fairytale') with selected excerpts from well-known speeches, like

JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you..."

Clinton: "Just words"

FDR: "The only thing we have to fear..."

Clinton: "Just words"

MLK: "I have a dream!"

Clinton: "Fairy tale"

Obama: "Sometimes words matter. Actions are important too. Please take action to show Hillary Clinton that words matter, by voting for me in the March 4th primary, and together, we can make a difference. I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message."

It is interesting that pollster.com shows Sen. pretty much stuck in the low 40's for the past ten days. Also, the two most recent polls show things possibly breaking Sen. Obama's way AFTER Clinton started campaigning in person. The Texas primary has tightened considerably in the past few days. What I am watching closely now is Ohio. If it follows the pattern, Sen. Obama will start closing the gap. Remember Missouri where he was down by 14 points two weeks before the primary and won it.